SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order-dated 20.4.2005 Annexure P/1, by which petitioner has been compulsorily retired under the provisions of Rule 42(1)(b) of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(2-A), petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge Class II on 16.10.1985. He was promoted as Civil Judge Class I on 26.7.1992 and thereafter as Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as "CJM') on 6.6.1997. Subsequently, in the year 1999, he was reverted from the post of CJM to the post of ACJM. In the meanwhile, certain adverse entries were communicated to him for the year 1997-98 vide communication Annexure R/7 dated 30.6.1998. His representation against the aforesaid communication was rejected vide Annexure R/8 on23.1.1999. Thereafter, in the next year 1998-99 also, he was given an advisory remark and his grading was rated as 'average', as is evident from Annexure R/9 dated 13.4.1999. Subsequently, his representation against this was also rejected vide Annexure R/10, on 13.10.1999. However, on 16.1.2002, he was again promoted as CJM. While working as CJM again for the year 2001, certain advisory remarks were communicated to him vide Annexure R/12. However, on 9.5.2003 he was promoted to the post of Additional District Judge (HJS) and was posted in Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur, in the newly opened Court. A complaint was received against the petitioner with regard to a pilgrimage undertaken by the petitioner between 4.6.2004 to 13.6.2004, while being posted as ADJ. It was indicated in the complaint that petitioner accompanied by one Shri Anil Saxena, Advocate, Government Pleader of District Gohad, District Bhind and another Advocate Shri K.C. Upadhyaya undertook the pilgrimage in a Tempo Trax Vehicle alongwith his family members and the expenses for the same was mainly borne by the Advocates. It was pointed out that after coming back the petitioner had passed certain orders in criminal cases to the advantage of these Advocates and, therefore, the complaint was looked into and on the basis of a report submitted by the District Judge (Vigilance), a prima facie case being made out, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. In this regard, the note-sheet of the District Judge (Vigilance) is Annexure R/15 dated 6.1.2005; approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice is Annexure R/15 dated 8.1.2005; the report of the Administrative Committee No.1 proposing to initiate Departmental Inquiry is Annexure R/16 dated 7.3.2005. While the Departmental Inquiry was pending, advisory remarks were again communicated to the petitioner for the year ending 2004 on 8.4.2005 vide Annexure P/3 and P/4.

(3.) In the meanwhile, as the petitioner had completed 20 years of service, his case came up for scrutiny with regard to his continuation in service after completing 20 years as required under Rule 42 (1)(B) of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1965 and while scrutinizing the case of the petitioner, it was found that the over all performance of the petitioner was not 'good', he was only an 'average' worker and taking note of the totality of the circumstances the Administrative Committee No.1 recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The recommendations of the Administrative Committee was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 16.4.2005 vide Annexure R/22, and based on the same the State Government has passed the impugned order Annexure P/1.